• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

How important do you consider the issue of gay marriage?

On a scale of one to ten, how much does it matter?

  • Total voters
    56
Omgitsme said:
Those in the military should be able to separate their job from their love life.
Click to expand...

You would think so.

Omgitsme said:
And isnt there some rule against dating others in your company or something?
Click to expand...

Yes, there are rules: officers with officers, enlisted with enlisted, and no one 'dates' their chain of command. If an officer and enlisted become a couple, the military gives them a year to either marry or brake up before UCMJ action is taken.

It is these perfectly legal relationships among consenting adults which are causing a lot of problems. IMO there should be a strict zero-tolerance interpretation of the anti-fraternization rule, at least for active units.
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
You would think so.



Yes, there are rules: officers with officers, enlisted with enlisted, and no one 'dates' their chain of command. If an officer and enlisted become a couple, the military gives them a year to either marry or brake up before UCMJ action is taken.

It is these perfectly legal relationships among consenting adults which are causing a lot of problems. IMO there should be a strict zero-tolerance interpretation of the anti-fraternization rule, at least for active units.
Click to expand...

are enlisted men/women allowed to date officers OUTSIDE their chain of command?
 
Jerry said:
You would think so.



Yes, there are rules: officers with officers, enlisted with enlisted, and no one 'dates' their chain of command. If an officer and enlisted become a couple, the military gives them a year to either marry or brake up before UCMJ action is taken.

It is these perfectly legal relationships among consenting adults which are causing a lot of problems. IMO there should be a strict zero-tolerance interpretation of the anti-fraternization rule, at least for active units.
Click to expand...

Yeah I knew about the fraternization between officers and enlisted thing and chain of command thing. But I thought there was a rule about dating anyone within your company as well. I could be entirely wrong though.

But I agree with you on the strict zero tolerance interpretation of the anti fraternization rule.
 
StillBallin75 said:
Why is it deemed necessary to force them to make a choice? Just curious.
Click to expand...
To avoid favoritism, and to avoid the appearance of favoritism to other solders. Also, officers order enlisted to their death, so there's that. An officer needs to be making decisions as an officer, not as a spouse, and we can't have NCOs running around thinking they can boss solders of higher rank under threat of going to their spouse.

Essentially, these rules are to maintain 'good order and discipline' within the ranks. If any 2 solders in the same chain of command are married, one of them will be moved.

Romantic relationships in general are problematic, in that dating the chain of command is a popular way for females to receive favoritism. Obviously we know what the male gets out of the deal. Promotions and other favorable action should be based on a solder's work performance, PT and rifle qualification, not based on whether they spit or swallow. The pursuit of romantic relationships is the reason females have to live in separate quarters from males. Allowing gay men to openly live in the regular male billets is exactly like letting women live in the male billets.

Even to solders who wouldn't entertain the relationship, those solders are still being forced to live in very close proximity to solders who do, and that causes a lot of problems.
 
Last edited:
Omgitsme said:
Yeah I knew about the fraternization between officers and enlisted thing and chain of command thing. But I thought there was a rule about dating anyone within your company as well. I could be entirely wrong though.

But I agree with you on the strict zero tolerance interpretation of the anti fraternization rule.
Click to expand...
It's one of those rules where the unit commander has a lot of leeway to enforce as they see fit. You could have one unit with a strict zero-tolorence enforcement and another right next to it where the rule is so laz that females can come and go from the male tent as they please.
 
Jerry said:
It's one of those rules where the unit commander has a lot of leeway to enforce as they see fit. You could have one unit with a strict zero-tolorence enforcement and another right next to it where the rule is so laz that females can come and go from the male tent as they please.
Click to expand...

Ok thanks for the clarification.
 
I'm for SSM but I don't call it a Constitutional right because I've read the Constitution.
 
mpg said:
I'm for SSM but I don't call it a Constitutional right because I've read the Constitution.
Click to expand...

as "anyone here" called it that?
 
Objective-J said:
as "anyone here" called it that?
Click to expand...
Uh...you? :lol:

Objective-J said:
hmmm

I agree there are more important issues if directly compared
I agree that its not a TOP issue for me when deciding who to vote for
I am for equal gay rights BECAUSE I respect the constitution and bill of rights

and while I may not always look for a candidates stand on equal gay rights, if they say they are against equal rights and want to put things in place to stop them they will not get my vote because they obviously have no clue what this country is about and they are a huge hypocrite.
Click to expand...
 
A candidate's stand on it can tell you about the kind of candidate he is. That said, it's not a big issue in times of economic trouble.
 
Black_Zawisza said:
Uh...you? :lol:
Click to expand...

really?
wow dishonesty seems to be common with you

I don't see where I called same sex marriage a constitutional right at all LMAO :laughat:

anything else you want to make up?
 
Objective-J said:
really?
wow dishonesty seems to be common with you

I don't see where I called same sex marriage a constitutional right at all LMAO :laughat:

anything else you want to make up?
Click to expand...
So let me get this straight. You said "I am for equal gay rights BECAUSE I respect the constitution" and then now you're claiming that you didn't say it was a constitutional right?

Either you're scared ****less of admitting you were wrong, or you never bothered to exercise your "constitutional" right to a primary school education.

EDIT: Also, it's funny how every other post you make includes some derivative of "LMAO" when there's almost never something actually amusing about the situation.
 
Last edited:
Black_Zawisza said:
So let me get this straight. You said "I am for equal gay rights BECAUSE I respect the constitution" and then now you're claiming that you didn't say it was a constitutional right?

Either you're scared ****less of admitting you were wrong, or you never bothered to exercise your "constitutional" right to a primary school education.

EDIT: Also, it's funny how every other post you make includes some derivative of "LMAO" when there's almost never something actually amusing about the situation.
Click to expand...

oh the irony in your post

so you still have no proof where I said "same sex marriage is a constitutional right" and now you are deflecting because you lied and are flat out wrong?

got it

lets see if you will keep lying and making stuff uo

I will ask you AGAIN

PLEASE show me where I said "same sex marriage" is a constitutional right? I'm still waiting :laughat:

EDIT: when a poster has no clue what they are talking about that is amusing and will always get a LMAO
 
Last edited:
Omgitsme said:
I think military standards and assignments should be equal for both sexes. Let women into combat roles as long as they can pass the same physical requirements as a man. I dont know enough about athletic program funding to comment on that. Public restrooms are seperated due to differences in male and female anatomy. Marriage is not effected by those differences while using the restroom is.
Click to expand...
Last I knew, a toilet with a locked cubicle accommodates both sexes.

I agree about women in combat roles if they are able to pass the same physical standards as men, so there would be one physical standard and any who are able to pass it would be able to serve in combat. More women then not will not be able to, and that is because genetically, most women do not possess the physical capabilities. It's fair too because there are some small frail men who cannot pass the physical requirements. its just a matter of more men are genetically matched than women are. Combat and war itself is something that needs to most able regardless of why, and political fairness or correctness is not part of the rules of engagement.
 
As for the poll itself, I do think too much time and effort is being spent on this issue. Gay people make up only a small percentage of the population and not all gay people even want to get married. I am sure just about all of them want the ability to. But seeing as perhaps 5% of the people who want to get married currently cannot, this issue should not be tops on the list. Tops on the list are issues that effect everyone. Basic priorities should be what the politicians should focus their efforts on.
 
Objective-J said:
I am for equal gay rights BECAUSE I respect the constitution and bill of rights
Click to expand...

Are you implying that the constitution gives the federal government any authority over state marriage laws?

Why do you cite the constitution and bill of rights with regards to same sex marriage?
 
Last edited:
Objective-J said:
oh the irony in your post

so you still have no proof where I said "same sex marriage is a constitutional right" and now you are deflecting because you lied and are flat out wrong?

got it

lets see if you will keep lying and making stuff uo

I will ask you AGAIN

PLEASE show me where I said "same sex marriage" is a constitutional right? I'm still waiting :laughat:

EDIT: when a poster has no clue what they are talking about that is amusing and will always get a LMAO
Click to expand...

CRICKETS, thats what I thought lol
 
Centinel said:
1.)Are you implying that the constitution gives the federal government any authority over state marriage laws?

2.)Why do you cite the constitution and bill of rights with regards to same sex marriage?
Click to expand...



1.)nope I wasnt implying that at all BUT in general the constitution can absolutely trump state laws :shrug:

2.) I didnt cite it, I was replying to someone that did, thats way its in there nor did I mention same sex marriage I mentioned equal gay rights.
 
Objective-J said:
1.)nope I wasnt implying that at all BUT in general the constitution can absolutely trump state laws :shrug:

2.) I didnt cite it, I was replying to someone that did, thats way its in there nor did I mention same sex marriage I mentioned equal gay rights.
Click to expand...

Okay, thanks. I thought you were arguing that the constitution gives the federal government authority over state marriage laws. Never mind; my mistake.
 
Without having read any other responses:

Black_Zawisza said:
I don't think that governments ought to get out of the marriage business, for two reasons: a) I don't think it should be involved in it, and b) I think it's the only compromise that both proponents and opponents might accept, aside from the civil union/marriage distinction (which in my experience many anti-SSM folks seem cool with but many that are pro-SSM seem opposed). People should just call themselves married if they feel like it.
Click to expand...

You don't think they should get out of it because you don't think they should be involved? I am really hoping that you corrected this later in the thread because that is really contradictory.

I believe that SSM is a grave sin, but I oppose any attempt to criminalize it because people have to right to choose self-destruction; I don't see why opponents care about it. I also don't really understand why so many pro-SSM folks think it's such an important issue; correct me if I'm wrong, but civil unions with all the benefits of marriage are available in many jurisdictions, and as far as I know, most homosexuals seem uninterested in marriage (I saw some stats a while ago about limited numbers of SSMs in Massachusetts, but I can't find it now).
Click to expand...

IF a given legal civil union was actually legally equivalent to a legal marriage, I would agree with you. But unless the wording as to the benefits were letter to letter identical, then they are not equal. In addition, several courts have already stated that they will not give the same legal weight to civil unions as they do to marriages. To be equal, they need to be equal.

Also in regards to your stats, you need to look at the source AND the way they were derived. A low number of SSM in Mass could derive from there simply being a higher concentration of homosexuals in other states, or even from there being a large number performed in the state, but to people from outside the state. The number needs some context.
 
Centinel said:
Okay, thanks. I thought you were arguing that the constitution gives the federal government authority over state marriage laws. Never mind; my mistake.
Click to expand...

no problem at all, lord knows I make my share of mistakes, at least you asked instead of falsely guessing like others
 
Paschendale said:
Agreed. SSM as a specific topic is not necessarily the most important issue (though it certainly is for gays who wish to marry), but its treatment is certainly indicative of how a person or group will treat civil liberties in general. An organization that is staunchly against SSM likely won't be for protecting any kind of religious liberty besides their own, for example. It's all part of a bigger ball of wax.
Click to expand...

Agreed. When we embark on a road that creates second tier citizens, we weaken our own rights.
 
Centinel said:
Are you implying that the constitution gives the federal government any authority over state marriage laws?

Why do you cite the constitution and bill of rights with regards to same sex marriage?
Click to expand...

14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom